LX90 10" GPS vs LX200R 8" GPS vs CPC 9.25 GPS 9"

[buzz5]

Hello,

I have approx £2,300 GBP to spend on a telescope for general usage (good all-rounder), I can't decide wether to get a LX90 10" GPS or a LX200R 8" GPS or a CPC 9.25 GPS 9"

do I go for that extra 2" LX90 or is the LX200R a better telescope?

I will be using it mainly in the garden, will move it out of the house on a night.

will be taking images with Canon EOS 350d SLR and hooking it up to a PC

Or do I spend an extra £600 on a 10" LX200R or get a 12" LX90 or CPC 1100 GPS 11" ? - see my dilemma!

what would you get?

Thanks,

Buzz

[Martin 2]

CPC does it for me, I have a celestron nx8 gps and would not part with it, having said that I have no personal experience with Mead.

M2

[GazOC]

Hi Buzz,

Welcome to Stargazers.

The improvements on the LX200R are worthwhile if you intend to get into imaging to any great degree, if you don't then the extra 2" of the LX90 will be better for visual.

Have you looked at any non-GPS scopes? If you are only using it in your garden then you don't really need the feature, it might free up a bit of mney for accessories.

If you do go with a 12" LX90 of a C11 make sure you see one in the flesh before you buy.....they are BIG setups!!

Gaz

[GordonCopestake]

I dont like the extra weight of the meade 'scopes over the celestron ones. The CPC925 is a great all rounder and the one I would go for it I had the cash. Portable enough and still a good sized aperture. As Gaz says, goto a showroom or somewhere you can see the 'scopes in the flesh (and attempt to lift them!) they get HEAVY fast.

[moondog]

I would agree with Gordon - the Celestron 9.25 would be portable, the others with greater difficulty. I have the C8 GPS and this is easily carried, and the 9.25 is not a great deal heavier.

Bear in mind that if you want to do astro imaging - 'out of the box' the scopes you mentioned can only manage the moon and bright planets, since they're all fork mounts. They would all need an equatorial wedge and (usually) some other gear - like a focal reducer, EP illuminated reticule for drift aligning etc., before you can attempt to image Deep Sky Objects. With the C 9.25 OTA on a Sky Scan Pro EQ6 Go To mount (equatorial) and a focal reducer, you could image DSO's without any additional equipment. Just a thought.

MD

[buzz5]

ok, thanks guys.

[buzz5]

i'm now looking at a non GPS - C11S-GT (XLT) which is below budget, would this be weaker in any areas? than above.

Thanks.

[GordonCopestake]

I would go for the C11 on the EQ6 rather than on the CG5. The CG5 is the BARE minimum for visual with a C11. The EQ6 is a much better option for photography.

http://www.iankingimaging.com/show_products.php?category=72 scroll to the end

[GazOC]

I can never believe the C11 is sold on a CG5. :shock:

EQ6 or HEQ5 as a minimum. Having said that, is it still cheaper to buy the CG5 and OTA than just the OTA and sell the mount seperately?

[buzz5]

ok, the C11 and EQ6 are over budget (£3.3k) where the C9.25 CD OTA + EQ6 looks like a good option! (£2.3k), i'm seriously thinging about ordering that setup.

What other bits are recommended for that setup for imaging?, I have a canon eos 350d camera + laptop I wish to use with it.

[GordonCopestake]

As an "accessory" to the C925/EQ6 I would purchase an ED80

[GazOC]

I think you've made a good choice, the best scope in the world is useless if the mount is no good for it.

If you do need to cut back a few pounds, the C9.25 is perfectly OK on a HEQ5 but if you can afford the EQ6 then go for it.

[buzz5]

do you know where I can buy an ED80 pro in the UK on the internet? can't find any on google. 'uk buy ED80'

[GordonCopestake]

I was being a little tounge in cheek, but there is a link here: http://www.firstlightoptics.com/proddetail.php?prod=pro80ed1ota

[GazOC]

I was being a little tounge in cheek, but there is a link here: http://www.firstlightoptics.com/proddetail.php?prod=pro80ed1ota

Those two scopes do compliment each other quite well though....

[GordonCopestake]

Yup, the SCT design always has the drawback of being very slow. It's a drawback that is easily rectified with a good guide scope though that can double as both a photographic instrument and a very good rich field "browser"

[moondog]

With the C 9.25 & the EQ6 GT I'd get the Celestron Focal Reducer. It makes the C 9.25 an f 6.3 scope i.e. it's 3 times faster and is ideal for DSO's. For the wider DSO's like the American Nebula a piggy back ED 80 would be the icing on the cake !

That set up would be able to tackle almost any astro object you'd care to name wether visual or imaging.

8)

MD